Tsadi

Well, personly i hate brane theory.

Ok. Sorry.

I'm a bit of a story teller. Whilst this is not the usual kind of thing you will read, i hope it is enjoyable. 19th Feb. 3034 RADIO NEBULA - Interview with Dr. Layton 'Thank you Dr. Layton for speaking with us today on Radio Nebula. As you will know, we have asked you to come on today to explain what you and your counterpart scientists are just attempting to do.' 'Hello - thanks for inviting me on today - well, let me explain. Myself and my colleagues have now created the very first artificial intelligent computer in the lab - this discovery has now led me and my scientists into contemplating the probability of inserting human persona into the world of computer automata.' 'How did you manage this? What would this achieve? In fact, isn’t this a dangerous thing to do?' 'Simeon, one question at a time my friend. This is not an easy subject to explain. However, because we have non-scientifically-minded listeners, i will make it as simple to understand as possible... now your first question was, 'how did we manage this? Well, we managed this by studying memory simulation, and how we come to know something. You see, a computer doesn't have objective consciousness, thus its information or memory is paradoxically, meaningless. We found out, that by allowing a computer to choose deletion or to choose a new path which it can string memories together, we found it choose the latter. In doing so, the computer began to string memory together, instead of it treating it as individual pieces of knowledge.' 'How did you actually manage this?' 'Well, we found that by restricting the access of a bit of memory after the first time the computer analyzes it, we could then program the computer to 'throw' the experience into a feedback circuit, that would forever loop around.' 'What would this achieve Dr.?' 'For centuries, scientists thought that it might be possible to put our thoughts and feelings into computers, because there where striking similarities to biological memory and computer memory, par the few discrepancies that we had to change by forcing the computer to treat knowledge as valuable as existence itself - something we do, but take for granted everyday. This knowledge is thus turned into secret knowledge, a principle of consciousness first hypothesized by the legendary 20th century physicist, David Albert. Now that we know intelligence and consciousness can exist in cyberspacetime, we know it to be equally possible to transfer our thoughts and feelings into computers, because consciousness can exist in this computerized, holographic world.' 'Dr. isn't there dangers creating an artificially intelligent computer?' 'Actually, there are a few Dangers. In the 1900's a film called the Matrix portrayed a world of deception, as we could be nothing more than computer generations, interpreted through brain waves. This deception was due to a superintellgent computer - an artificial intelligent entity - that attacked the human race, and harvested them as batteries... the funny thing is, as old as this theory is, still holds, despite its improbable applications. Also, now that our computer has individuality, which we have come to call it 'Trinity' after the female character in the film The Matrix, we find ourselves asking ''does it now have human rights''? After all, it has a state of awareness.... Other questions, involve the problem of how we extract the persona of a human, and safely do it for that matter, and place it into a computer simulation.' 'Fascinating Dr. ... what is Trinity like?' 'Well, studying how she works is a little hard, because we cannot use normal psychology... she simply doesn't have a human mind... however, we learn that she is eager to process information, and highly logical. We communicate to her through typing words into the computer, and she understands what we are saying, as she was able to learn all known languages within six moon days. We are even using her logical intelligence to help us build a more accurate picture of the universe; she was developed to be, perfect...' 'Where will this take your work now?' 'Well, in the 21st century, mathematician and physicist Frank Tipler said that we would all transfer our persona's into nanotechnology and cast ourselves into deep space, to escape the death of our star... thankfully that hasn't happened; even though earth is now unhabited through global warming - however, the moon would inexorably be incinerated when our star finally turns into a red giant. I want to take his vision further. Scientists in the 21st century believed that it would be possible to create universes in the lab. Today, that theory, as we know has been made a possibility with the discovery of magnetic monopoles, which are extremely rare 'sub-subatomic' objects with one magnetic pole that curves into itself. Right now, we are attempting to find experimental ways to harvest the enormous amount of false energy contained within it.' 'What's false energy Dr. ... is that the same as the false vacuum?' 'The false vacuum Simeon contains what we call, 'negative energy’. The false energy was thought to be the reason why Big Bang occurred, and we still hold to this theory today. If we can release this energy, there is the possibility of it breaking off our spacetime fabric... connected via a wormhole.' 'A wormhole connects one universe with another, doesn't it Dr.? 'Indeed. It was physicist John Wheeler who called these openings, wormholes. They are basically tunnels created by distortions in spacetime. They can lead to other places in our universe, or they can link to other universes... even lab created universes. Now, if we can release the energy from the magnetic monopole, we would begin to see some strange things. The universe we have created would be surrounded by a Black Hole - an exotic object that is gravitationally warped enough to stop light. Though, this black hole would be tiny, and would evaporate within time through quantum effects. However, the new universe would continue to expand forever. Now, when, not a matter of if, we transfer emotions and thoughts into nanotechnology, we could move into this new universe, through the wormhole - but this is also potentially dangerous, as it could as quickly close up. However, the discovery of Dark Matter might be useful, as was hypothesized by scientists generations ago. We could use it to inflate the wormhole to a considerable size - enough space to ship our new technological nanoexistences into the newly born universe.' 'Isn't there dangerous recreated the primordial forces of the big bang?' 'We cannot be wholly sure. You see, from what we understand of relativity, the baby universe and the forces contained within it should remain within its highly curved spacetime... Though, i admit, the current theories on spacetime forces could be wrong - though it's highly unlikely.'' 'Why would we want to do this?' 'Simply to escape the Big Crunch. Even though Tipler showed us that time would seem to go on forever at the last moments, and as nanolife, we could live what would seem an eternity, in the very last billionth of a billionth of a nanosecond. But what if we decided to do this by hopping universes, i asked? This would be the greatest endeavor - for our beings to travel freely through universes - in the form of nanotechnology... We could potentially evolve forever, and forever travel the universes, by creating a universe, in a universe indefinitely.' 'So not only do we live forever, but we get to experiment on other universes in the form of mechanical intelligences.' 'Exactly. Since we cannot get inside information on other universes whilst in this one, it seems only logical to do it by creating our own universes... and this, i predict, is just around the corner...' ‘So Dr, do you really believe we can jump into other universes… I mean, what comes to my mind, is ‘what if they don’t exist.’ ‘If they don’t exist Simeon, we might have a saving grace. According to the laws of relativity, time is not absolute, and you could jump into a black hole in the last remaining hours of existence and move through the topological opening into a new time in the past… perhaps we could venture back to when science was still young, back to the days when parallel universes where just starting to be taken seriously by physics, and when the giants Einstein and Heisenberg where debating the very nature of physics itself… it would be an excellent adventure…’’ ‘In the twentieth century, the famous scientist Stephen Hawking gave a chronological order to time, saying that we can’t travel to a time that did not permit a time machine… in other words, a time machine can only go back to the time it was made, and not before… what do you say to that Dr? ‘It’s been postulated for a while that time machines cannot break ‘self-consistency.’ Self consistency is a rule within quantum mechanics that covers a large spectrum of ideas and one of them involve time travel. According to Stephen Hawking, who ironically created the first working models of black holes, stated that time travel into that past could only be allowed if there was a time machine there. This retains the consistency of the argument, but parallel universes might be a way out of the problem. To violate self consistency, for you to move back in time past the creation of the time machine itself, you need to have parallel universes. Instead of using a time machine, we can use black holes to move back in time, and if you jumped into one, you could very possibly move into other universes. In fact, you could potentially travel through black holes an entire lifetime, but never return back to the universe you had left…’ 'This has been a most interesting discussion Dr. ... and i am sure our scientific and non-scientific listeners also are astounded by the marvelous advances in science you have presented today.' 'Thank you again Simeon - it's always a pleasure speaking to you.'

quantum physics does have a few interesting implications to that of memory, and mind, which would take more time i have now to explain. Maybe later. However, what i wanted to say is that neurobiologist Candace Pert believes the human mind is in every cell of the body.

Oh, i ended up throwing out, couldn't tell you now. However, it was a cheepo bought in the local market.

( I should have also said, the standard model does not deal with a pre-big bang. However, there is an existing model, the Ekpyrotic Theory which does, but is still highly speculative).

How do you do that?

Well, it would mean that we have strained our equations a bit too much. It would mean that time is not a physical vector, and that things can evolve quite perfectly without its description. It wouldn't be a disaster for physics, but it would a new way to look at everything. The way things, might i stress, was looked upon before Minkowski's input. It just means, that time would no longer be a dimension as such, but would remain a totally psychological aspect of the human experience.

The universe expands in nothing. Therefore, it has nothing to expand into. If you mean, what is the state the universe is trying to reach, then that is not fully known. All i can tell you is that it is probable the universe just wanted a bit of life, for it makes sure it uses the least amount of energy possible. As for where the universe came from, the answer is just as weak i am affraid. Physics deals with no actual pre-bang state. So in a sense, without any real mechanism, or cause, everything spewed into existence. In fact, you may as well say that everything came from nothing. This is how bad it is.

Thanks mate Hahahaha -- does everyone get the complimentary x-files pic to use for their avatar... heehee

That's because in schools we universally use four dimensions. It's not a parlour trick, where we can magically use four dimensions, and no longer three. If push came to shove, we could use three, without the four. We did it for a long time without the aid of Minkowski and his generalization of four vectors. Then there was Eddington, who clearly helped Einstein get to the top, but even he said four dimensions seemed crazy. Again, we only use four dimensions because there is no educational system which doesn't teach that time isn't the fourth dimension. Now ask yourself why time is the fourth dimension, and if you don't know, i will tell you.

How do i edit my personal files then.. the about me section and stuff like that?

Wow, wow, wow. A hologram? Is this a joke? Do we even have the technology available to students to create holograms?

Well, the fourth dimension isn't needed in physics. We can make perfectly good physics out of a Euclidean Space. As for time being proven, its very hard. We know ''we'' sense time, but whether anything else experiences a time, is up for debate.

Sorry -- Stuart is not a physicist, though he does deal greately in physics, and well deserves to be called one. ''I think physics teaches no such thing. On the contrary, in physics we learn not to depend on our perception, since we want objective measurement.'' Not entirely true. Physics is arising with the notion right now that time is how i described it. As i said, i watched a documentary not long ago with Stuart in it, talking about his conversations with another physicist, and they came to agree that time was flashes. Then, only about half a year ago, i remember reading work by Fred Wolf, a theoretical scientist in the area of physcology and mind, and he pretty much said the same thing too. So yes, i am sure this is what we are taught, if studying this area. However an objective measurement is radical and needed, but moreover, time can still exist as a ghost of the mind, and nothing in reality is vastly changed, other than the equations that describe it. Without time, there might still be movement. Time just seems to be something we use to take note of things that pass us by. There is really no evidence to suggest it exists independantly of the mind at all. Even movement. (Oh yes... and Tipler also created an independant theory, where reality flashed in and out of existence.)